linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: limit bpf_core_types_are

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 15 Dec 2021 09:29:44 -0800
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Matteo Croce <mcroce@...ux.microsoft.com>
Cc:     bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: limit bpf_core_types_are_compat() recursion

On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 6:54 AM Matteo Croce <mcroce@...ux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe do a level check here?
> > Since calling it and immediately returning doesn't conserve
> > the stack.
> > If it gets called it can finish fine, but
> > calling it again would be too much.
> > In other words checking the level here gives us
> > room for one more frame.
> >
>
> I thought that the compiler was smart enough to return before
> allocating most of the frame.
> I tried and this is true only with gcc, not with clang.

Interesting. That's a surprise.
Could you share the asm that gcc generates?

> > > +                       err = __bpf_core_types_are_compat(local_btf, local_id,
> > > +                                                         targ_btf, targ_id,
> > > +                                                         level - 1);
> > > +                       if (err <= 0)
> > > +                               return err;
> > > +               }
> > > +
> > > +               /* tail recurse for return type check */
> > > +               btf_type_skip_modifiers(local_btf, local_type->type, &local_id);
> > > +               btf_type_skip_modifiers(targ_btf, targ_type->type, &targ_id);
> > > +               goto recur;
> > > +       }
> > > +       default:
> > > +               pr_warn("unexpected kind %s relocated, local [%d], target [%d]\n",
> > > +                       btf_type_str(local_type), local_id, targ_id);
> >
> > That should be bpf_log() instead.
> >
>
> To do that I need a struct bpf_verifier_log, which is not present
> there, neither in bpf_core_spec_match() or bpf_core_apply_relo_insn().

It is there. See:
        err = bpf_core_apply_relo_insn((void *)ctx->log, insn, ...

> Should we drop the message at all?

Passing it into bpf_core_spec_match() and further into
bpf_core_types_are_compat() is probably unnecessary.
All callers have an error check with a log right after.
So I think we won't lose anything if we drop this log.

>
> > > +               return 0;
> > > +       }
> > > +}
> >
> > Please add tests that exercise this logic by enabling
> > additional lskels and a new test that hits the recursion limit.
> > I suspect we don't have such case in selftests.
> >
> > Thanks!
>
> Will do!

Thanks!